On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > but as for why it gets a much worse plan after > flattening --- insufficient data.
Thanks. I'll run some test cases in the morning and post the full queries matched with ANALYZE EXPLAIN. This is just puzzling to me. I was hoping there might be a more general planner issue that someone would have noticed. On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:55 PM, David G Johnston wrote: > > I presume you have a reason for not simply doing away with the subquery > altogether... When not using the subquery, the query ran in 1s -- if I didn't have a LIMIT/OFFSET Adding a LIMIT/OFFSET to that query made it run for nearly 6 minutes. The only way I could manage to trick it to use the better query plan, was to wrap the "good" query as a subquery, and then run a LIMIT/OFFSET in the outer query.
